Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[lrt's friend]

Montreal and Rideau would not be wide enough even if there was no street parking. They have the same width as Eglinton through the central portion in Toronto. And that's being tunneled.

I have made the point before that there is alternatives between buses in mixed traffic and a subway. The Eglinton project even though not fully tunneled is the most expensive transit project in Ontario history. Do you think Ottawa taxpayers can afford one of these? Are there cheaper alternatives that will provide better transit than we have today? There has to be.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

A transit based community would automatically be denser without necessarily making people live in a denser situation. How? By reducing the 6 and 8 lane wide boulevards, reducing the size of parking lots and eliminating clover leafs that waste so much land in the suburbs.

It ain't nothing, but I think that would be a pretty small change in the overall density (and assumes people are willing to live without arterial roads in a city that is still car centric).

[lrt's friend]

Yes we can. The Confederation Line at launch will be the busiest LRT line in North America. It will have 10 - 11 000 pphpd, with an ultimate limit of 24 000 pphpd. For comparison the Yonge Subway in Toronto is at 30 000 pphpd. There is absolutely no way to support that kind of throughput with surface light rail running in the media of an avenue.

I challenge anyone to show me an LRT that funnels 11000 riders on a non-grade separated and non-segregated ROW. I'm doubtful that this is even done in Europe or Asia.

I did not say in place of the Confederation Line. Almost nobody on the Montreal Road corridor will be using the Confederation Line, at least if they are heading downtown. Single car LRT on Montreal Road would be cheaper to operate than 40 foot buses if it helps speed up service, encourages redevelopment and attracts new riders.

[lrt's friend]

This is a ridiculous metric. It's basically an argument for LRTs to be built every 2km apart so that nobody has to cross a bus line with more direct service

Why should this not be our long term vision? How else will we defeat the car culture? If we create a more reliable and accessible transit network, will we not then start getting people back on transit?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I have made the point before that there is alternatives between buses in mixed traffic and a subway. The Eglinton project even though not fully tunneled is the most expensive transit project in Ontario history. Do you think Ottawa taxpayers can afford one of these? Are there cheaper alternatives that will provide better transit than we have today? There has to be.

I don't think there are. There are mixed traffic streetcars (which really isn't any better than a bus), dedicated surface transit infrastructure - bus or streetcar -
(which requires 5ish metres of right of way plus platforms), grade separation - underground or elevated (which requires big money) and transit-only streets (which would be politically impossible for either Bank or Montreal).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why should this not be our long term vision? How else will we defeat the car culture? If we create a more reliable and accessible transit network, will we not then start getting people back on transit?

1. Nobody would be willing to spend the tens of billions of dollars for such a system.
2. I don't think most people want to defeat car culture.

[lrt's friend]

This is a strawman. Who has argued this? Nobody is arguing against building additional lines because of ridership competition. What is being debated is whether those additional lines stand on their own merits.

The general attitude at the city is that if you are within 5 km, you should be satisfied. Who will walk 5 km for transit? Debating the merits of additional lines is fine but often involves draining passengers from one line to another. This argument comes out all the time, for example, when the original O-Train opened. It can then be argued, why build anything? For example, why do you argue against better transit on Montreal Road? That is what your argument amounts to. Surely, we can do better in some way.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

1. Nobody would be willing to spend the tens of billions of dollars for such a system.
2. I don't think most people want to defeat car culture.

Long-term may mean 100 years. Do you think when the Confederation Line is finished, we will not want to build something else?

The younger are not as attached to the car culture already.

I think there will also be a trend to a lower standard of living in the future. We need to prepare for this.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't think there are. There are mixed traffic streetcars (which really isn't any better than a bus), dedicated surface transit infrastructure - bus or streetcar -
(which requires 5ish metres of right of way plus platforms), grade separation - underground or elevated (which requires big money) and transit-only streets (which would be politically impossible for either Bank or Montreal).

See you gave more than two options. That was exactly my point.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

As a transfer station, it could just as easily be located further north. As for the flow in and out of the mall, the only reasonable way in or out of the station by foot is via the mall, so that hardly tells you anything.

Why do people act like this is a trivial matter? It's not. A massive bus terminal like St. Laurent could cost up to $100M, once you account for everything from land acquisition and construction and integration with a subsurface LRT station.

Then there's the extra issue of where to locate the rail yard. With the line moving north, access will be an issue. You no have a substantially longer access. Or have to move the yard entirely.

Originally Posted by roger1818

What brownfield opportunities are you talking about? Are they within easy walking distance of the stations without any major obstacles (like highway or train tracks)? Assuming you are using the North American definition of brownfield land,
how badly contaminated is it?

I find that people tend to use brownfield and infill somewhat interchangeably when it comes to colloquial usage.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Providing transit service to institutions isn't a bad thing.

Sure. If they are trip generators....

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's not really a good example, and is a lot further east than the Montreal Rd. corridor that people are talking about as dense.

This is more like it:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4361556,-...HT7rzvXfOt6YvrQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

It's not really that different than many of the corridors in Montreal and Toronto that have métro or subway service.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.5780448,-...n1QFyuJd0U1Xazw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

The big difference is that in Toronto or Montreal, density is maintained along most of the corridor. In Ottawa, most of Montreal Rd, east of St. Laurent is closer to what I portrayed. That doesn't make much of a case for putting a multi-billion dollar LRT there.

And again, discussing density here is a red herring. The primary driver for the LRT was to relieve bus congestion through the core and to reduce operating costs. LRT on Montreal Road would not achieve that.

Originally Posted by roger1818

IMHO only smaller grocery stores have synergy with transit. I think Farmboy will be successful that way. Loblaws is too big for someone to quickly stop by and pick up a few things for dinner tonight and lunches tomorrow. It is geared more towards the weekly massive grocery run where you pick up all of the staples and supplies you need for the week/month.

Grocery chains can open smaller stores that are urban/transit friendly. They are doing this in Toronto and Montreal. The real issue here is that the malls command rents that are too high for grocery stores, unless they are more high end. I hope the mall owners wise up. And I wish the city would put pressure on them to get grocery stores into every mall that's a transit hub.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Anybody who thinks the Queensway has sufficient density to support transit hasn't gotten around much either.

You don't need density if you have feeder service. Which is exactly what you've pointed out:

Originally Posted by roger1818

Most people who will use the LRT will transfer to it from a bus.

Exactly the point I keep making. Density is a red herring. What drives transit planning is ridership. There's no guarantee at all that building it along Montreal would generate enough walk-on ridership to compensate for the loss of ridership from longer bus rides. And it certainly wouldn't compensate for the costs of continuing to operate the Transitway.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The argument is that Montreal road would be the better route (admittedly more expensive).

And that expense is not as trivial as some here are making it out to be. It would be rather fatal to the entire exercise.

Originally Posted by roger1818

It is a bit of a pointless argument now though as we are committed to the current route.

Meh. As long as salt keeps getting spilled on supposedly dense neighbourhoods not getting higher order transit.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Oh please. Anyone can pick a view that has low density in Ottawa. Here is one from Blair Station:
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4315321,-75.6092356,42a,35y,92.31h,76.46t/data=!3m1!1e3

Irrelevant because nobody is making an argument that the LRT should be built on the Transitway for surrounding density. The Transitway was converted for cost and ridership.

Originally Posted by roger1818

That is green belt and will not likely ever be developed. At least the view you picked on Montreal rd has potential for development. If you want to see existing density on Montreal Rd, here is a better view:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4399411,-75.6578464,147a,35y,154.69h,62.69t/data=!3m1!1e3

Three apartment buildings within 300 m and in the foreground is the where the proposed Sally Ann shelter is going. There is also lots of room for TOD.

None of that is density that warrants an extra $1+ billion to build LRT on Montreal and the added operational cost of maintaining the Transitway and continuing to run buses through the core.

Again, the driver for transit is ridership. Density is merely one element of trip generation.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But if you zoom out it is all two story detached houses (maybe some semis) in every direction.

That's true of much of inner city Ottawa, though. Including many areas that the Confederation Line is going through.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The general attitude at the city is that if you are within 5 km, you should be satisfied. Who will walk 5 km for transit? Debating the merits of additional lines is fine but often involves draining passengers from one line to another. This argument comes out all the time, for example, when the original O-Train opened. It can then be argued, why build anything? For example, why do you argue against better transit on Montreal Road? That is what your argument amounts to. Surely, we can do better in some way.

I don't think 5 km is intended to be the walking distance for transit. I think 5km is intended to be a reasonable local bus ride to a rapid transit station.

This is how transit works everywhere. If you live in Zone 6 in London you don't expect the underground to serve your local street, you expect to get on a bus to take you to the local tube or rail station.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's true of much of inner city Ottawa, though. Including many areas that the Confederation Line is going through.

Yes, but the confederation line does not rely on local residents (although there are some local residents and some future opportunities for more local residents). The confederation line relies on transfers from buses and follows a route that was 1) available without building a 10 km tunnel 2) offered a number of convenient transfer points for buses and 3) connected a number of major drivers of transit (malls, post-secondary institutions, the train station, etc). Ottawa has no neighbourhoods dense enough to support mass transit on their own.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Brownfield
Hurdman, former MTO site across from St Laurent (now owned by the feds),

You never did say how much remediation is necessary for those lands.

Hasn't the area around Hurdman basically become a park? Do you really think it will ever be developed?

I am not 100% sure what you mean by the former MTO site. Do you mean that vacant lot on Coventry Rd just west of the mall? As has been argued before walking to/from St. Laurant station isn't very easy. I seem to remember you saying that if they keep the mall open after hours it wouldn't be safe because of all the blind corners.

Greyfield
Former RCMP facilities, pretty much everything around Cyrville station that isn't the Brownstone development, most of the Gloucester Centre, possible parts of the telsat campus. West side of Cummings south of the power line (partly greenfield as well)

I would argue there is even more Greyfield land that would be even more walkable on Montreal Rd.

Greenfield
most of the area north of the transit line between the parkway and Gloucester Centre.

Is that land not protected? Even if it were developed, it is a bit beyond the 800 m considered easily walk-able.

I just don't see the eastern LRT stations as being easily accessible by foot from many existing or future developments, making them almost exclusively transfer stations. It doesn't matter though their locations won't change now.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The big difference is that in Toronto or Montreal, density is maintained along most of the corridor. In Ottawa, most of Montreal Rd, east of St. Laurent is closer to what I portrayed. That doesn't make much of a case for putting a multi-billion dollar LRT there.

I wasn't alive when Toronto and Montreal built their systems (in 1954 and 1966 respectively), but did they have that density along the corridor before the lines opened?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

You never did say how much remediation is necessary for those lands.

You didn't offer millions of dollars for the necessary studies.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Hasn't the area around Hurdman basically become a park? Do you really think it will ever be developed?

Map on p.37 lists most of the site as "urban redevelopment"
http://s3.amazonaws.com/ncc-ccn/documents/culp-ptuc-en-optimized.pdf?mtime=20170422195136

Originally Posted by roger1818

I am not 100% sure what you mean by the former MTO site. Do you mean that vacant lot on Coventry Rd just west of the mall? As has been argued before walking to/from St. Laurant station isn't very easy. I seem to remember you saying that if they keep the mall open after hours it wouldn't be safe because of all the blind corners.

Here

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4191321,-...D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

It is a short walk to the existing tunnel, but I think the redevelopment plan calls for a new pedestrian bridge.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I just don't see the eastern LRT stations as being easily accessible by foot from many existing or future developments, making them almost exclusively transfer stations. It doesn't matter though their locations won't change now.

I agree that pedestrian infrastructure in the area 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵, but improving pedestrian infrastructure is much cheaper than building new tunnels.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I have made the point before that there is alternatives between buses in mixed traffic and a subway. The Eglinton project even though not fully tunneled is the most expensive transit project in Ontario history. Do you think Ottawa taxpayers can afford one of these? Are there cheaper alternatives that will provide better transit than we have today? There has to be.

There are no alternatives. If you want to put through 10 000 pphpd, you need grade separation. Simple as that.

And if we are simply talking about local transit, then why do you need rail at all? What exactly would a streetcar service provide that buses can't do on Montreal road? Heck, you can achieve higher-order transit there by simply getting rid of parking and tossing in curbside bus lanes. You don't need LRT that cost tens of millions per kilometre.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I did not say in place of the Confederation Line. Almost nobody on the Montreal Road corridor will be using the Confederation Line, at least if they are heading downtown. Single car LRT on Montreal Road would be cheaper to operate than 40 foot buses if it helps speed up service, encourages redevelopment and attracts new riders.

What would single car LRT accomplish on Montreal that more buses couldn't? And whatever those accomplishments would be, are they worth investing several hundred million dollars? And where exactly would that money come from?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The general attitude at the city is that if you are within 5 km, you should be satisfied. Who will walk 5 km for transit?

Nobody walks 5km. That radius puts you within a reasonable bus ride of a station. Normally 2km is the max for walk radius.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Debating the merits of additional lines is fine but often involves draining passengers from one line to another.

And if that happens, planners generally don't support it, because it's a waste of resources.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This argument comes out all the time, for example, when the original O-Train opened. It can then be argued, why build anything? For example, why do you argue against better transit on Montreal Road? That is what your argument amounts to.

What an utterly ridiculous strawman.

I have not argued against better transit on Montreal Rd. I am arguing against hundreds of millions, or even billions in LRT on Montreal Rd. Want to improve transit on Montreal Rd? Implement signal priority, build curbside bus lanes and put up some nicer shelters and sidewalks. Good enough.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why should this not be our long term vision?

Define long term. The City's plans cover about 25 years. And there's no money to accomplish this within 25 years.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

How else will we defeat the car culture?

With a lot more than just transit.....

Defeating car culture involves substantially changing the way people live, work and socialize. And you certainly aren't going to accomplish those changes by focusing all your scarce transit dollars on a small area of the city, while leaving vast swaths of the population still reliant on cars.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If we create a more reliable and accessible transit network, will we not then start getting people back on transit?

Sure. And how does wasting hundreds of millions of dollars to overbuild transit capacity on Montreal Rd, help with building a "more reliable and accessible transit network"? The keyword there is network. There is an opportunity cost to overbuilding in one corridor. And the network effects of that lost opportunity cost are huge.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I wasn't alive when Toronto and Montreal built their systems (in 1954 and 1966 respectively), but did they have that density along the corridor before the lines opened?

Yonge. Yes. Danforth, not really. And Danforth remains moderately dense for most of the corridor today.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Long-term may mean 100 years. Do you think when the Confederation Line is finished, we will not want to build something else?

Yes. And those plans are already lined up. Electrification and twin tracking of Trillium. Baseline-Heron-Walkley BRT. And probably a Hunt Club BRT. We also need to address crossing the river. There's plenty to do that should be a priority ahead of a streetcar on Montreal.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The younger are not as attached to the car culture already.

It's why they are moving downtown, where they walk and don't use much transit either.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I think there will also be a trend to a lower standard of living in the future. We need to prepare for this.

If you truly believe this, wasting scarce and limited transit dollars overbuilding, becomes even more ridiculous.

[Truenorth00]

To summarize the conversation here, I'll say this again:

1) Ridership is the key driver for transit investment. It's the only way to justify to governments and taxpayers the billions you are asking them to fork over.

2) Density is important, but it's not the whole enchilada. It's not the only way to gin up ridership. Feeder services can do just as well. And the Confederation Line proves this in spades. It will literally be the busiest LRT line in North America on day one. And it's doing that without much density nearby.

3) Density is not a static issue. Now that the LRT is in place, we will presumably see a lot more development directed to areas near the stations. In due course, the LRT corridor may end up with more overall density (jobs + residents / ha) than Montreal Rd. The only difference is that instead of linear development along a corridor, we'll see nodal developments with higher density, closer to the station.

4) Opportunity cost. It's apparent that many of you either don't get this concept or aren't thinking of it at all. The cost to put the Confederation Line on Montreal would probably have been at least a billion more, over and above the $2 billion being spent in Stage 1. Operational costs would have been higher, since in all likelihood, the Transitway would have to be maintained. Ask yourself what Ottawa could achieve for a billion dollars. By my rough calculation, a billion dollars would pay for twin tracking and electrification of the Trillium Line and full construction of a Baseline-Heron-Walkley BRT, from Richmond in the West to the 417 in the East. Maybe enough to even convert the Southeast Transitway to LRT. Would you rather have all that or a subway on Montreal Rd that at best would have run from Blair to Pimisi (and in the worst case from St. Laurent to Bronson)?

I am super proud of what Ottawa is doing with LRT. Ottawa lead the way with BRT. And in one fell swoop, it's showing what high end LRT can do as well.